The following article was published in the Straits Times on 30 December 1998.
1 killed, 1 hurt in separate accidents
Straits Times, 30 December 1998
TWO men, both foreigners working here, were knocked down in separate road accidents.
One died instantly and the other was seriously injured.
Mr Sathiah Ariyamothu, 35, a construction worker, was hit by a car on the Seletar Expressway, just before Woodlands Avenue 2, on Monday. He died instantly.
He had parked his lorry on a road shoulder and was placing pylons at the rear of the lorry when he was knocked down.
On Monday morning, a car knocked down a man who was crossing Somerset Road at a traffic crossing.
Mr Abdul Barek, 26, a foreign worker, was taken to the Singapore General Hospital with head injuries.
Anyone with information may contact the Traffic Police on 222-2233.
Wednesday, December 30, 1998
Wednesday, December 23, 1998
Weekday maids, weekend salesgirls
The following article was published in the Straits Times on 23 Dec 1998.
ON WEEKDAYS, they are maids. But on weekends, some foreign domestic workers moonlight as salesgirls in boutique and jewellery shops.
The Ministry of Manpower found 14 such workers employed illegally in two Lucky Plaza shops last Sunday.
In a statement on Monday, it revealed that it had conducted an afternoon inspection at Jolene's Boutique and Jewellery and GP Gold on the fourth floor of the shopping centre. They checked 19 staff and found one Thai and 13 Filipino domestic workers among them.
"Preliminary investigations revealed that they usually worked on Sundays when they were given a day off by their employers," the statement said.
These workers were paid between S$30 and S$45 a day, and one had been working there for three years.
Under Singapore law, domestic workers are not allowed to work at shops, factories or food stalls. It is also an offence for them to work part-time, even with their employers' consent.
"Employers are advised to caution their domestic workers not to engage in any other employment during their employment in Singapore," the MOM said.
It added that it was now investigating the case against the shopowners.
An illegal employer can be charged in court and face a minimum fine of two years' of the foreign worker's levy ($7,920), with a maximum of up to four years' levy, or a prison term of not more than one year or both.
He will also be barred permanently from employing a foreign domestic worker and may lose his S$5,000 deposit.
The worker faces a fine of up to S$5,000 or jail of not more than a year, or both. She will also be barred from future employment here.
PENALTIES: In short
* For the employer: They can be charged in court and face a minimum fine of two years' of the foreign worker's levy ($7,920), with a maximum of up to four years' levy ($15,840), or a prison term of not more than one year, or both. They are barred permanently from employing a foreign domestic worker, and may lose the S$5,000 deposited with MOM.
* For the worker: A fine of up to S$5,000 or a prison term of not more than a year, or both. She will also be barred from future employment here.
ON WEEKDAYS, they are maids. But on weekends, some foreign domestic workers moonlight as salesgirls in boutique and jewellery shops.
The Ministry of Manpower found 14 such workers employed illegally in two Lucky Plaza shops last Sunday.
In a statement on Monday, it revealed that it had conducted an afternoon inspection at Jolene's Boutique and Jewellery and GP Gold on the fourth floor of the shopping centre. They checked 19 staff and found one Thai and 13 Filipino domestic workers among them.
"Preliminary investigations revealed that they usually worked on Sundays when they were given a day off by their employers," the statement said.
These workers were paid between S$30 and S$45 a day, and one had been working there for three years.
Under Singapore law, domestic workers are not allowed to work at shops, factories or food stalls. It is also an offence for them to work part-time, even with their employers' consent.
"Employers are advised to caution their domestic workers not to engage in any other employment during their employment in Singapore," the MOM said.
It added that it was now investigating the case against the shopowners.
An illegal employer can be charged in court and face a minimum fine of two years' of the foreign worker's levy ($7,920), with a maximum of up to four years' levy, or a prison term of not more than one year or both.
He will also be barred permanently from employing a foreign domestic worker and may lose his S$5,000 deposit.
The worker faces a fine of up to S$5,000 or jail of not more than a year, or both. She will also be barred from future employment here.
PENALTIES: In short
* For the employer: They can be charged in court and face a minimum fine of two years' of the foreign worker's levy ($7,920), with a maximum of up to four years' levy ($15,840), or a prison term of not more than one year, or both. They are barred permanently from employing a foreign domestic worker, and may lose the S$5,000 deposited with MOM.
* For the worker: A fine of up to S$5,000 or a prison term of not more than a year, or both. She will also be barred from future employment here.
Friday, December 18, 1998
Driver caused worker's death
The following article was published in the Straits Times on 18 Dec 1998.
Driver caused worker's death
Straits Times, 18 December 1998
A MOTORIST was fined S$9,000 and banned from driving for six years on Wednesday for causing the death of a foreign worker along the Tampines Expressway (TPE) on April 10.
Lim Shien Kwok, 34, was fined another S$1,000 for careless driving as he also hit another foreign worker, injuring him.
The two foreign workers were pruning plants near the centre guard rails of the expressway.
The court heard that Lim was driving on the TPE towards the Seletar Expressway that day when he lost control of his car and veered right.
He hit Mr Akhajan Nakhonsak, 26, a Thai worker. After the collision, the car continued to move and struck the centre divider, killing Mr Ramaiah Chockalingam, 39, an Indian national.
Lim pleaded guilty.
Counsel Alfonso Ang said his client had a clean driving record and regretted causing a death and injuring the other victim.
He could have been jailed for up to two years and fined for causing Mr Ramaiah's death.
Driver caused worker's death
Straits Times, 18 December 1998
A MOTORIST was fined S$9,000 and banned from driving for six years on Wednesday for causing the death of a foreign worker along the Tampines Expressway (TPE) on April 10.
Lim Shien Kwok, 34, was fined another S$1,000 for careless driving as he also hit another foreign worker, injuring him.
The two foreign workers were pruning plants near the centre guard rails of the expressway.
The court heard that Lim was driving on the TPE towards the Seletar Expressway that day when he lost control of his car and veered right.
He hit Mr Akhajan Nakhonsak, 26, a Thai worker. After the collision, the car continued to move and struck the centre divider, killing Mr Ramaiah Chockalingam, 39, an Indian national.
Lim pleaded guilty.
Counsel Alfonso Ang said his client had a clean driving record and regretted causing a death and injuring the other victim.
He could have been jailed for up to two years and fined for causing Mr Ramaiah's death.
Saturday, December 5, 1998
Ex-boss abused me, says foreign worker
The following article was published in the Straits Times on 5 December 1998.
Ex-boss abused me, says foreign worker
By Chong Chee Kin.
Straits Times, 5 December 1998
A FOREIGN worker who was hospitalised with both legs fractured has told the police that he sustained the injuries while escaping from a second-floor flat where he was allegedly assaulted by an ex-supervisor.
Mr Nagappan Senthi Kumar, 27, an Indian national who worked as a construction worker here said that he was walking along Veerasamy Road at night on Nov 18 when two men allegedly pulled him into a lorry.
He said he was then taken to a flat in Lengkok Bahru, where they kept watch over him. It was there that the alleged assault took place and, Mr Nagappan said, he later escaped by jumping out of the flat, hurting his legs in the process.
In an interview, he said he was to return to India on Nov 19. But he remained in Singapore because he had engaged lawyers to settle some workmen's compensation claims.
Speaking from his bed at Alexandra Hospital before he was discharged recently, Mr Nagappan said: "They took me to a flat, locked the door and then kept watch over me.
"There were two other Indian workers there as well, but I did not talk to them." About an hour later, he alleged, the supervisor went to the flat.
"He came into the room and asked me angrily why I had hired lawyers. And then he punched me on the face and the ears.
"The three men who brought me to the flat held him back, and then he left," the construction worker said.
He added: "I was very scared and kept shivering because I did not know what they were going to do to me.
"I waited until they were all sleeping before I climbed out of the window and jumped down."
He crawled on the ground until a passing taxi stopped and took him to Alexandra Hospital.
He made the report about the alleged abduction and assault there.
Police confirmed that he had made a police report.
When contacted, the supervisor denied that he had attacked Nagappan.
He said: "I never laid my fingers on him."
As to Mr Nagappan's allegations, he said: "This worker had run away from the worksite several times before.
"He failed to turn up for work and never told us where he went.
"I had to engage a security firm to ensure he did not run away. It is not as if I put him in jail.
"The flat had a bed for him. There was a television set and we provided meals for him."
He added: "I had personally recruited him from India, paid the hospital fees for him when he was injured outside the worksite, and even paid him his wages when he was sick.
"How can he do this to me just because he refuses to go back to India?"
Ex-boss abused me, says foreign worker
By Chong Chee Kin.
Straits Times, 5 December 1998
A FOREIGN worker who was hospitalised with both legs fractured has told the police that he sustained the injuries while escaping from a second-floor flat where he was allegedly assaulted by an ex-supervisor.
Mr Nagappan Senthi Kumar, 27, an Indian national who worked as a construction worker here said that he was walking along Veerasamy Road at night on Nov 18 when two men allegedly pulled him into a lorry.
He said he was then taken to a flat in Lengkok Bahru, where they kept watch over him. It was there that the alleged assault took place and, Mr Nagappan said, he later escaped by jumping out of the flat, hurting his legs in the process.
In an interview, he said he was to return to India on Nov 19. But he remained in Singapore because he had engaged lawyers to settle some workmen's compensation claims.
Speaking from his bed at Alexandra Hospital before he was discharged recently, Mr Nagappan said: "They took me to a flat, locked the door and then kept watch over me.
"There were two other Indian workers there as well, but I did not talk to them." About an hour later, he alleged, the supervisor went to the flat.
"He came into the room and asked me angrily why I had hired lawyers. And then he punched me on the face and the ears.
"The three men who brought me to the flat held him back, and then he left," the construction worker said.
He added: "I was very scared and kept shivering because I did not know what they were going to do to me.
"I waited until they were all sleeping before I climbed out of the window and jumped down."
He crawled on the ground until a passing taxi stopped and took him to Alexandra Hospital.
He made the report about the alleged abduction and assault there.
Police confirmed that he had made a police report.
When contacted, the supervisor denied that he had attacked Nagappan.
He said: "I never laid my fingers on him."
As to Mr Nagappan's allegations, he said: "This worker had run away from the worksite several times before.
"He failed to turn up for work and never told us where he went.
"I had to engage a security firm to ensure he did not run away. It is not as if I put him in jail.
"The flat had a bed for him. There was a television set and we provided meals for him."
He added: "I had personally recruited him from India, paid the hospital fees for him when he was injured outside the worksite, and even paid him his wages when he was sick.
"How can he do this to me just because he refuses to go back to India?"
Thursday, November 26, 1998
Foreign worker levy cut not permanent
The following article was published in the Business Times on 26 November 1998.
Foreign worker levy cut not permanent
By Carol Eng
Business Times Singapore, 26 November 1998
ABOUT 25,000 companies will benefit from the reduction in foreign worker levy, but Manpower Minister Lee Boon Yang reminded employers yesterday that the levy will be restored gradually when economic conditions improve.
Speaking in Parliament, he also elaborated on various government measures announced on Tuesday, like the bridging loan for mortgages and how the CPF cut will be applied to older workers.
CPF rates for workers aged above 55 will be halved to 2-4 per cent from Jan 1, said Dr Lee. The employers' contribution rates will be: For workers between 55 and 60: 4 per cent (round up from 3.75 per cent), from 7.5 per cent now; For those above 60, 2 per cent.
Originally, the employers' contribution rates for workers above 60 was supposed to be lowered to 4 per cent from Jan 1 due to the extension of the retirement age from 60 to 62. But in line with the principle of proportionate cuts in CPF, Dr Lee said the rate will be reduced to 2 per cent.
As for the bridging loan scheme (BLS) for CPF members who have depleted their ordinary and special accounts for monthly housing repayments, Dr Lee said this will be made available over three years, with the first draw down on March 1, 1999.
The quantum of the monthly bridging loan will be capped at the amount of shortfall, arising directly from the 6 percentage point cut in the ordinary account contribution rate, he added. Also, the cut-off age limit for this scheme will be 62 years.
Repayment will start one year after the end of the three-year draw-down period. Full repayment has to be made over 10 years or by the age of 65 or when the property is sold, whichever is earlier.
This scheme - which charges a concessionary rate of CPF interest plus 0.1 per cent - also applies to private property mortgages, HDB owners paying Credit POSB rates, and those who buy their flats before the CPF cut.
For HDB lessees who currently enjoy concessionary interest rates for outstanding mortgage loans, Dr Lee said they can apply for HDB's financial assistance measures instead, which is at the same concessionary rate. Further details on this and BLS will be released today.
Dr Lee said the government is aware of CPF members who have already committed their savings to pay tuition fees and insurance premiums. Hence, it will allow members to set aside sufficient amounts to meet these payments, when they apply for the loan programmes.
About 18 per cent of CPF members, or 217,100 people, will have insufficient monthly CPF contributions to meet their housing instalments after the 10-point CPF cut. Of these, 165,700 are HDB owners, 46,400 are private property owners and 5,000 are both HDB and private property owners, said Dr Lee.
He also said that of the 20,000 employees axed in the first nine months, about 30 per cent were foreigners.
As for why the domestic maid levy will not be cut, he said this is because the number of foreign maids rose despite the downturn, and there is a need to ensure their numbers do not grow out of proportion.
Foreign worker levy cut not permanent
By Carol Eng
Business Times Singapore, 26 November 1998
ABOUT 25,000 companies will benefit from the reduction in foreign worker levy, but Manpower Minister Lee Boon Yang reminded employers yesterday that the levy will be restored gradually when economic conditions improve.
Speaking in Parliament, he also elaborated on various government measures announced on Tuesday, like the bridging loan for mortgages and how the CPF cut will be applied to older workers.
CPF rates for workers aged above 55 will be halved to 2-4 per cent from Jan 1, said Dr Lee. The employers' contribution rates will be: For workers between 55 and 60: 4 per cent (round up from 3.75 per cent), from 7.5 per cent now; For those above 60, 2 per cent.
Originally, the employers' contribution rates for workers above 60 was supposed to be lowered to 4 per cent from Jan 1 due to the extension of the retirement age from 60 to 62. But in line with the principle of proportionate cuts in CPF, Dr Lee said the rate will be reduced to 2 per cent.
As for the bridging loan scheme (BLS) for CPF members who have depleted their ordinary and special accounts for monthly housing repayments, Dr Lee said this will be made available over three years, with the first draw down on March 1, 1999.
The quantum of the monthly bridging loan will be capped at the amount of shortfall, arising directly from the 6 percentage point cut in the ordinary account contribution rate, he added. Also, the cut-off age limit for this scheme will be 62 years.
Repayment will start one year after the end of the three-year draw-down period. Full repayment has to be made over 10 years or by the age of 65 or when the property is sold, whichever is earlier.
This scheme - which charges a concessionary rate of CPF interest plus 0.1 per cent - also applies to private property mortgages, HDB owners paying Credit POSB rates, and those who buy their flats before the CPF cut.
For HDB lessees who currently enjoy concessionary interest rates for outstanding mortgage loans, Dr Lee said they can apply for HDB's financial assistance measures instead, which is at the same concessionary rate. Further details on this and BLS will be released today.
Dr Lee said the government is aware of CPF members who have already committed their savings to pay tuition fees and insurance premiums. Hence, it will allow members to set aside sufficient amounts to meet these payments, when they apply for the loan programmes.
About 18 per cent of CPF members, or 217,100 people, will have insufficient monthly CPF contributions to meet their housing instalments after the 10-point CPF cut. Of these, 165,700 are HDB owners, 46,400 are private property owners and 5,000 are both HDB and private property owners, said Dr Lee.
He also said that of the 20,000 employees axed in the first nine months, about 30 per cent were foreigners.
As for why the domestic maid levy will not be cut, he said this is because the number of foreign maids rose despite the downturn, and there is a need to ensure their numbers do not grow out of proportion.
Tuesday, October 20, 1998
Maid agencies unaffected by Indonesia's ban.
The following article was published by the Straits Times on 20 October 1998.
Maid agencies unaffected by Indonesia's ban
By Chin Soo Fang and Zuzanita Zakaria.
Straits Times, 20 October 1998
INDONESIA'S move to suspend processing applications for maids headed for Singapore could be a blessing in disguise for agencies here, which are facing an over-supply.
Agents said employers would have fewer maids to choose from, but otherwise, the three-month suspension from Oct 1 would have little effect.
Dr Chua Kim Seng, president of the 30-strong Association of Recruitment and Employment Agents, said: "It can ease the problem of oversupply as demand for maids has dipped by as much as 50 per cent due to the economic crisis.
"We already have a big pool of maids waiting at training centres."
Ms Fiona Ang, president of the 80-strong Foreign Maids Employment Agencies Association, said agencies could recruit maids from elsewhere.
The suspension is also not likely to affect its intended target - agencies which have slashed the fees they charge employers. This used to be up to S$1,000, but some agents have even offered zero-fee schemes.
If anything, more agencies are doing the same. For instance, an agency called Telford held a three-day promotion two weeks ago, doing away with its usual fee of S$388. Business tripled, it said.
Indonesia's Manpower Department and labour recruiters suspended processing applications for new maids after the appearance of such schemes.
Authorities there said such schemes resulted in maids being made to pay up to double what they would normally pay, to make up for what the employer previously forked out.
But Mr Thomas Khoo, a manager with Delijoy Employment Agency, the first with the S$1 maid scheme in April, said that while the employer pays less, the maid did not end up paying more.
He said he could charge S$1 because of his close connection with his Indonesian labour supplier.
Maids from his agency go without wages for four months, to pay their share of the cost of coming here.
Other agencies take less every month, but over a longer period, or charge the employer such costs.
Getting the repayment settled early was good, he said, because in cases where the maid ran away or had to be sent back before the debt was settled, the agency could be saddled with a loss.
Mr Khoo said that his company would not change its policy in the light of the suspension. But some agencies said that it would not be lifted unless the low-fee schemes were stopped.
Mr Wong Poh Lin, president of the Local and Foreign Workers Employment Agents Association, said that making the maid bear the "lion's share of the cost of placement is unfair to the maid and should not be condoned". He said that the handful of agencies doing this should stop.
On why maid agencies and associations were pointing fingers at low-fee companies such as Delijoy, Mr Khoo said that his competitors were probably losing business to him.
As for how the maid is expected to fend for herself with no money in the first four months, he said: "We have an agreement with the employers that whatever the maids need, such as food and toiletries, they will all be provided."
Maid agencies unaffected by Indonesia's ban
By Chin Soo Fang and Zuzanita Zakaria.
Straits Times, 20 October 1998
INDONESIA'S move to suspend processing applications for maids headed for Singapore could be a blessing in disguise for agencies here, which are facing an over-supply.
Agents said employers would have fewer maids to choose from, but otherwise, the three-month suspension from Oct 1 would have little effect.
Dr Chua Kim Seng, president of the 30-strong Association of Recruitment and Employment Agents, said: "It can ease the problem of oversupply as demand for maids has dipped by as much as 50 per cent due to the economic crisis.
"We already have a big pool of maids waiting at training centres."
Ms Fiona Ang, president of the 80-strong Foreign Maids Employment Agencies Association, said agencies could recruit maids from elsewhere.
The suspension is also not likely to affect its intended target - agencies which have slashed the fees they charge employers. This used to be up to S$1,000, but some agents have even offered zero-fee schemes.
If anything, more agencies are doing the same. For instance, an agency called Telford held a three-day promotion two weeks ago, doing away with its usual fee of S$388. Business tripled, it said.
Indonesia's Manpower Department and labour recruiters suspended processing applications for new maids after the appearance of such schemes.
Authorities there said such schemes resulted in maids being made to pay up to double what they would normally pay, to make up for what the employer previously forked out.
But Mr Thomas Khoo, a manager with Delijoy Employment Agency, the first with the S$1 maid scheme in April, said that while the employer pays less, the maid did not end up paying more.
He said he could charge S$1 because of his close connection with his Indonesian labour supplier.
Maids from his agency go without wages for four months, to pay their share of the cost of coming here.
Other agencies take less every month, but over a longer period, or charge the employer such costs.
Getting the repayment settled early was good, he said, because in cases where the maid ran away or had to be sent back before the debt was settled, the agency could be saddled with a loss.
Mr Khoo said that his company would not change its policy in the light of the suspension. But some agencies said that it would not be lifted unless the low-fee schemes were stopped.
Mr Wong Poh Lin, president of the Local and Foreign Workers Employment Agents Association, said that making the maid bear the "lion's share of the cost of placement is unfair to the maid and should not be condoned". He said that the handful of agencies doing this should stop.
On why maid agencies and associations were pointing fingers at low-fee companies such as Delijoy, Mr Khoo said that his competitors were probably losing business to him.
As for how the maid is expected to fend for herself with no money in the first four months, he said: "We have an agreement with the employers that whatever the maids need, such as food and toiletries, they will all be provided."
We are not exploiting them - employers on $1 maid scheme
We are not exploiting them
Straits Times, 20 October 1998
EMPLOYERS ON THE S$1 MAID SCHEME
SEVERAL employers of S$1 maids said they were not exploiting their maids, only taking advantage of a bargain.
And six maids who came on the scheme said that they did not mind having no salary for four months. But several people also said they would not use an agency that offered a S$1 maid.
Madam Leong Yoke Yeng, a 40-year-old businesswoman who just hired an Indonesian maid from Delijoy last month, said: "For us employers, we have nothing much to lose if we send the maid back or when she runs away. My experience with maids is that for the first few months when they go without pay, they tend to be more hardworking.
"Slowly, as they accumulate their savings, many run away or simply become less interested in their work."
She said that she provided her maid toiletries and also bought her underwear as extras.
"Anyway, she doesn't really need money. Everything she needs she can get at home or I will pay."
Another employer, Television Corporation of Singapore actress Jin Yingji, in her 40s, said: "I give them some pocket money to buy their favourite things. And I pay for their stamps, envelopes, everything."
She added that she also rewards her two maids with tips of at least $10 when she wins at the mahjong table.
But teacher Lim Su Mei, 29, was among those who disagreed with the $1 maid scheme. She said: "I think it's disgusting. We're hiring a maid, not buying a slave.
"Employers shouldn't kid themselves by thinking that they are doing the maids a favour by giving them a job and home for a few years.
"As it is, times are so bad that they have to leave their families and children to come here to work, so the least we can do is to pay them a decent salary because we need their services."
One of the six maids here on the S$1 scheme, Ms Yuyun Juju, 28, said:
"I do not mind, because we have been told that we have to work for four months without any money to pay the agency back first.
"Anyway, life is difficult in the kampung. That is why I need this job."
Straits Times, 20 October 1998
EMPLOYERS ON THE S$1 MAID SCHEME
SEVERAL employers of S$1 maids said they were not exploiting their maids, only taking advantage of a bargain.
And six maids who came on the scheme said that they did not mind having no salary for four months. But several people also said they would not use an agency that offered a S$1 maid.
Madam Leong Yoke Yeng, a 40-year-old businesswoman who just hired an Indonesian maid from Delijoy last month, said: "For us employers, we have nothing much to lose if we send the maid back or when she runs away. My experience with maids is that for the first few months when they go without pay, they tend to be more hardworking.
"Slowly, as they accumulate their savings, many run away or simply become less interested in their work."
She said that she provided her maid toiletries and also bought her underwear as extras.
"Anyway, she doesn't really need money. Everything she needs she can get at home or I will pay."
Another employer, Television Corporation of Singapore actress Jin Yingji, in her 40s, said: "I give them some pocket money to buy their favourite things. And I pay for their stamps, envelopes, everything."
She added that she also rewards her two maids with tips of at least $10 when she wins at the mahjong table.
But teacher Lim Su Mei, 29, was among those who disagreed with the $1 maid scheme. She said: "I think it's disgusting. We're hiring a maid, not buying a slave.
"Employers shouldn't kid themselves by thinking that they are doing the maids a favour by giving them a job and home for a few years.
"As it is, times are so bad that they have to leave their families and children to come here to work, so the least we can do is to pay them a decent salary because we need their services."
One of the six maids here on the S$1 scheme, Ms Yuyun Juju, 28, said:
"I do not mind, because we have been told that we have to work for four months without any money to pay the agency back first.
"Anyway, life is difficult in the kampung. That is why I need this job."
Wednesday, October 14, 1998
Say a firm 'No!' to S$1 maid.
The following article was published in the Straits Times on 14 Oct 1998.
Say a firm 'No!' to S$1 maid
By Alan John.
14 October 1998
Straits Times
ONE dollar won't buy you a bowl of noodles at a food centre, but for that low, low price, you can get yourself a foreign maid.
If you look out for the "weekend special", which is how one maid agent described his offer, you pay nothing at all.
Some things do get worse, and the bargain basement tactics of some maid agents here rank among them.
One agency has been doing brisk business since advertising its S$1 maid, wiping out the competition and placing 200 Indonesian maids a month with employers.
Other agencies charge employers between S$500 and S$1,000 for an Indonesian maid.
It shows you how some businessmen will find opportunities in tough times and succeed in drawing the crowd.
Shows you, too, that there are many people out there who are only too happy to pay a buck for a maid and think nothing more of it.
They might well count this as yet another advantage of being here, not there. Times are so bad in Indonesia, women are lining up to be maids overseas.
Some are so desperate, they will say yes to a job even if it means working for months on end for virtually nothing at all, while their pay goes to their agents here and at home.
Some women start work with a debt of up to S$1,800 and, given a salary of S$230 a month, may go without wages for up to eight months while repaying their agents.
Now the Indonesian authorities have imposed a three-month ban on maids to Singapore, to protest the agents' huge deductions from the maids' wages.
Foreign maids and how they are treated remain a perennial issue and we are unlikely to agree on what makes for proper treatment of a maid.
The issue pops up every time a particularly nasty case of abuse reaches the courts, with an ensuing debate on whether most of us make good or bad employers.
There are regular calls for minimum pay and standard contracts which spell out terms and conditions, and list what is or isn't the maid's work.
It is hard to say how much of this could succeed even if we had it, because when a maid moves into her employer's home, the boss-employee relationship is like no other. There is simply no policing what happens behind closed doors.
The one-dollar maid gives us a glimpse of how desperate people are elsewhere, how easily the poor can be exploited, and how some of us will pretend not to see things for what they are.
Mind you, nobody is breaking the law here.
The last time The Straits Times reported the one-dollar maids on offer, in August this year, a reader urged the Government to do something about it.
The Manpower Ministry wrote to the Forum Page to say that the common practice is for the maid to pay for her air ticket, recruitment and any training she may have received from her agents.
The agent in the home country usually provides an advance to cover such costs, and the maid repays it after she finds work.
The Singapore agent helps his foreign counterpart by collecting the sum owed from the maid, out of her wages.
The ministry said that such deductions are not unlawful, and the amount to be deducted is also beyond its control as it is determined by the agent in the home country of the foreign domestic worker.
The ministry promised to monitor the situation.
The irony now is that even maid agents are criticising the one-dollar offers, saying it is the maid who suffers when competition descends to such an absurd level.
We should not look immediately to the Government to take action, because this is something anyone with a conscience can do something about himself.
You don't have to look at an ad for a one-dollar maid and say, hey, terrific!
You don't have to shrug it off either, saying, too bad but that's life. What can anyone say?
For starters, try: "Shame on you."
Or how about: "That's a disgusting thing to do."
Say it to the maid agents and say it to anyone you know who sees the one-dollar maid as just another special offer up for grabs.
Say it because we're talking about people here, not a great-value sofa or non-stick wok, fishballs or chicken drumsticks.
Say no, you will not take a maid for a buck and think it all right to have her toil in your home from morning to night seven days a week while her pay packet goes to the agents for months on end.
Say that you do not kid yourself that you are doing a greater good by providing her a job, shelter and food.
Some may think it a stupid thing to do, but say too, that if you want to have a foreign maid, you will feel better for doing the decent thing by paying your share to bring her here.
How we treat our maids must rank somewhere on the list of ways to make this a better place in the 21st century.
It must also figure on the list of ways to raise a better generation of Singaporeans.
And we don't need the Government to tell us this.
Say a firm 'No!' to S$1 maid
By Alan John.
14 October 1998
Straits Times
ONE dollar won't buy you a bowl of noodles at a food centre, but for that low, low price, you can get yourself a foreign maid.
If you look out for the "weekend special", which is how one maid agent described his offer, you pay nothing at all.
Some things do get worse, and the bargain basement tactics of some maid agents here rank among them.
One agency has been doing brisk business since advertising its S$1 maid, wiping out the competition and placing 200 Indonesian maids a month with employers.
Other agencies charge employers between S$500 and S$1,000 for an Indonesian maid.
It shows you how some businessmen will find opportunities in tough times and succeed in drawing the crowd.
Shows you, too, that there are many people out there who are only too happy to pay a buck for a maid and think nothing more of it.
They might well count this as yet another advantage of being here, not there. Times are so bad in Indonesia, women are lining up to be maids overseas.
Some are so desperate, they will say yes to a job even if it means working for months on end for virtually nothing at all, while their pay goes to their agents here and at home.
Some women start work with a debt of up to S$1,800 and, given a salary of S$230 a month, may go without wages for up to eight months while repaying their agents.
Now the Indonesian authorities have imposed a three-month ban on maids to Singapore, to protest the agents' huge deductions from the maids' wages.
Foreign maids and how they are treated remain a perennial issue and we are unlikely to agree on what makes for proper treatment of a maid.
The issue pops up every time a particularly nasty case of abuse reaches the courts, with an ensuing debate on whether most of us make good or bad employers.
There are regular calls for minimum pay and standard contracts which spell out terms and conditions, and list what is or isn't the maid's work.
It is hard to say how much of this could succeed even if we had it, because when a maid moves into her employer's home, the boss-employee relationship is like no other. There is simply no policing what happens behind closed doors.
The one-dollar maid gives us a glimpse of how desperate people are elsewhere, how easily the poor can be exploited, and how some of us will pretend not to see things for what they are.
Mind you, nobody is breaking the law here.
The last time The Straits Times reported the one-dollar maids on offer, in August this year, a reader urged the Government to do something about it.
The Manpower Ministry wrote to the Forum Page to say that the common practice is for the maid to pay for her air ticket, recruitment and any training she may have received from her agents.
The agent in the home country usually provides an advance to cover such costs, and the maid repays it after she finds work.
The Singapore agent helps his foreign counterpart by collecting the sum owed from the maid, out of her wages.
The ministry said that such deductions are not unlawful, and the amount to be deducted is also beyond its control as it is determined by the agent in the home country of the foreign domestic worker.
The ministry promised to monitor the situation.
The irony now is that even maid agents are criticising the one-dollar offers, saying it is the maid who suffers when competition descends to such an absurd level.
We should not look immediately to the Government to take action, because this is something anyone with a conscience can do something about himself.
You don't have to look at an ad for a one-dollar maid and say, hey, terrific!
You don't have to shrug it off either, saying, too bad but that's life. What can anyone say?
For starters, try: "Shame on you."
Or how about: "That's a disgusting thing to do."
Say it to the maid agents and say it to anyone you know who sees the one-dollar maid as just another special offer up for grabs.
Say it because we're talking about people here, not a great-value sofa or non-stick wok, fishballs or chicken drumsticks.
Say no, you will not take a maid for a buck and think it all right to have her toil in your home from morning to night seven days a week while her pay packet goes to the agents for months on end.
Say that you do not kid yourself that you are doing a greater good by providing her a job, shelter and food.
Some may think it a stupid thing to do, but say too, that if you want to have a foreign maid, you will feel better for doing the decent thing by paying your share to bring her here.
How we treat our maids must rank somewhere on the list of ways to make this a better place in the 21st century.
It must also figure on the list of ways to raise a better generation of Singaporeans.
And we don't need the Government to tell us this.
Monday, August 31, 1998
Manpower ministry stands by S$2,000 security bond to curb abuse.
The following article was published in the Business Times on 31 August 1998.
Manpower ministry stands by S$2,000 security bond to curb abuse
By Carol Eng
Business Times Singapore, 31 August 1998
THE Manpower Ministry is standing by its rules for a S$2,000 security bond for foreign worker levy payments as this is effective in curbing what it sees as industry malpractices that have led to abandoned foreign workers.
MOM said 726 workers on average were abandoned each month by employers who defaulted on levy payments. More than 5,000 workers were thus abandoned by this employer group from January to July, or two-thirds of the total abandoned by contractors, said MOM in response to queries from BT.
Recently, contractors and MOM have exchanged a flurry of letters in The Straits Times' Forum Page on the S$2,000 levy bond.
The "industry malpractices" MOM refers to originate from a kickback system where foreign workers pay their home agents to come to Singapore. This commission is shared with the Singapore agent, who in turn splits it with the Singapore employer or contractor. Estimates of the contractors' cut amount to S$1,000 to $3,000 per worker. MOM's contention is that contractors then deliberately default on foreign worker levies and subsequently abandon the workers.
In April, it introduced a bond of S$2,000 per worker on employers who default on levies or who are habitually late in their payments. Employers are considered to be in default if they miss payments for two months - each month's levy is due on the 14th of the following month. Construction firms pay a monthly levy of $470 for an unskilled worker, and S$100 for a skilled worker.
But writers to ST said they are late in paying levies not because of "malpractices", but because of genuine cash flow problems. In particular, some questioned the need to forfeit the bond when it should be there to cover shortfalls in payments, with the balance returned to employers. "It is even more unjust to forfeit bonds when no actual default has occurred," according to the latest writer.
The ministry's view is that most employers asked to post the bond are "likely to be non-bona fide contractors unable to provide any basis for appeal". Of the 950 employers asked to post the bond since April, only 15 per cent appealed against it, MOM noted. Of these, four-fifths were successful as they showed proof they had on-going and viable projects and were facing cash flow crunches.
Employers who are successful in their appeals will have their bonds deferred for an initial period of three months. There is no waiver.
Noting that 500-600 workers filed claims every month against employers for non-payment of salaries, MOM said: "The facts show that the perpetuators of the malpractices in the construction sector are the unscrupulous employers who bring in large groups of foreign workers only to deliberately default on their levy payments and abandon these workers. Such abuses cannot be allowed to continue unchecked."
Singapore Contractors Association Ltd executive director Simon Lee agreed that abuses existed in the system.
The managing director of a listed construction firm said it was mainly subcontractors who were giving problems, as main contractors were unlikely to let their names be dragged down.
Mr Lee said: "There tends to be 'other employers' using the guise of a sub-contractor to flout the law." It was likely that the balance of the 950 companies did not appeal because they were unaware that they could do so, he said.
"In good times, the bond may be a good deterrent. But in bad times, it may aggravate contractors' cash flow difficulties and accentuate the abandonment of workers." He added that the operations of small sub-contractors were often not well organised, and they were hard put to come up with substantiating documents, especially when they were far down the supply chain. As the line could consist of five or even more sub-contractors, he said that when a developer is late in payments, the main contractor delays paying his first sub-contractor, which then starts a domino effect.
"By the time the last few sub-contractors know there'll be a delay in payments for the works done, they would already have financed the project for several months already," Mr Lee said. "If there is no bond, there is a higher chance that the employer can stretch his dollar a bit longer and keep the worker."
Manpower ministry stands by S$2,000 security bond to curb abuse
By Carol Eng
Business Times Singapore, 31 August 1998
THE Manpower Ministry is standing by its rules for a S$2,000 security bond for foreign worker levy payments as this is effective in curbing what it sees as industry malpractices that have led to abandoned foreign workers.
MOM said 726 workers on average were abandoned each month by employers who defaulted on levy payments. More than 5,000 workers were thus abandoned by this employer group from January to July, or two-thirds of the total abandoned by contractors, said MOM in response to queries from BT.
Recently, contractors and MOM have exchanged a flurry of letters in The Straits Times' Forum Page on the S$2,000 levy bond.
The "industry malpractices" MOM refers to originate from a kickback system where foreign workers pay their home agents to come to Singapore. This commission is shared with the Singapore agent, who in turn splits it with the Singapore employer or contractor. Estimates of the contractors' cut amount to S$1,000 to $3,000 per worker. MOM's contention is that contractors then deliberately default on foreign worker levies and subsequently abandon the workers.
In April, it introduced a bond of S$2,000 per worker on employers who default on levies or who are habitually late in their payments. Employers are considered to be in default if they miss payments for two months - each month's levy is due on the 14th of the following month. Construction firms pay a monthly levy of $470 for an unskilled worker, and S$100 for a skilled worker.
But writers to ST said they are late in paying levies not because of "malpractices", but because of genuine cash flow problems. In particular, some questioned the need to forfeit the bond when it should be there to cover shortfalls in payments, with the balance returned to employers. "It is even more unjust to forfeit bonds when no actual default has occurred," according to the latest writer.
The ministry's view is that most employers asked to post the bond are "likely to be non-bona fide contractors unable to provide any basis for appeal". Of the 950 employers asked to post the bond since April, only 15 per cent appealed against it, MOM noted. Of these, four-fifths were successful as they showed proof they had on-going and viable projects and were facing cash flow crunches.
Employers who are successful in their appeals will have their bonds deferred for an initial period of three months. There is no waiver.
Noting that 500-600 workers filed claims every month against employers for non-payment of salaries, MOM said: "The facts show that the perpetuators of the malpractices in the construction sector are the unscrupulous employers who bring in large groups of foreign workers only to deliberately default on their levy payments and abandon these workers. Such abuses cannot be allowed to continue unchecked."
Singapore Contractors Association Ltd executive director Simon Lee agreed that abuses existed in the system.
The managing director of a listed construction firm said it was mainly subcontractors who were giving problems, as main contractors were unlikely to let their names be dragged down.
Mr Lee said: "There tends to be 'other employers' using the guise of a sub-contractor to flout the law." It was likely that the balance of the 950 companies did not appeal because they were unaware that they could do so, he said.
"In good times, the bond may be a good deterrent. But in bad times, it may aggravate contractors' cash flow difficulties and accentuate the abandonment of workers." He added that the operations of small sub-contractors were often not well organised, and they were hard put to come up with substantiating documents, especially when they were far down the supply chain. As the line could consist of five or even more sub-contractors, he said that when a developer is late in payments, the main contractor delays paying his first sub-contractor, which then starts a domino effect.
"By the time the last few sub-contractors know there'll be a delay in payments for the works done, they would already have financed the project for several months already," Mr Lee said. "If there is no bond, there is a higher chance that the employer can stretch his dollar a bit longer and keep the worker."
Manpower ministry stands by $2,000 security bond to curb abuse
The following article was published in The Business Times on 31 August 1998.
Manpower ministry stands by $2,000 security bond to curb abuse
By CAROL ENG
The Business Times 31/08/1998
Bond effective in deterring abandonment of foreign workers
THE Manpower Ministry is standing by its rules for a $2,000 security bond for foreign worker levy payments as this is effective in curbing what it sees as industry malpractices that have led to abandoned foreign workers.
MOM said 726 workers on average were abandoned each month by employers who defaulted on levy payments. More than 5,000 workers were thus abandoned by this employer group from January to July, or two-thirds of the total abandoned by contractors, said MOM in response to queries from BT.
Recently, contractors and MOM have exchanged a flurry of letters in The Straits Times' Forum Page on the $2,000 levy bond.
The "industry malpractices" MOM refers to originate from a kickback system where foreign workers pay their home agents to come to Singapore. This commission is shared with the Singapore agent, who in turn splits it with the Singapore employer or contractor. Estimates of the contractors' cut amount to $1,000 to $3,000 per worker. MOM's contention is that contractors then deliberately default on foreign worker levies and subsequently abandon the workers.
In April, it introduced a bond of $2,000 per worker on employers who default on levies or who are habitually late in their payments. Employers are considered to be in default if they miss payments for two months - each month's levy is due on the 14th of the following month. Construction firms pay a monthly levy of $470 for an unskilled worker, and $100 for a skilled worker.
But writers to ST said they are late in paying levies not because of "malpractices", but because of genuine cash flow problems. In particular, some questioned the need to forfeit the bond when it should be there to cover shortfalls in payments, with the balance returned to employers. "It is even more unjust to forfeit bonds when no actual default has occurred," according to the latest writer.
The ministry's view is that most employers asked to post the bond are "likely to be non-bona fide contractors unable to provide any basis for appeal". Of the 950 employers asked to post the bond since April, only 15 per cent appealed against it, MOM noted. Of these, four-fifths were successful as they showed proof they had on-going and viable projects and were facing cash flow crunches.
Employers who are successful in their appeals will have their bonds deferred for an initial period of three months. There is no waiver.
Noting that 500-600 workers filed claims every month against employers for non-payment of salaries, MOM said: "The facts show that the perpetuators of the malpractices in the construction sector are the unscrupulous employers who bring in large groups of foreign workers only to deliberately default on their levy payments and abandon these workers. Such abuses cannot be allowed to continue unchecked."
Singapore Contractors Association Ltd executive director Simon Lee agreed that abuses existed in the system.
The managing director of a listed construction firm said it was mainly subcontractors who were giving problems, as main contractors were unlikely to let their names be dragged down.
Mr Lee said: "There tends to be 'other employers' using the guise of a sub-contractor to flout the law." It was likely that the balance of the 950 companies did not appeal because they were unaware that they could do so, he said.
"In good times, the bond may be a good deterrent. But in bad times, it may aggravate contractors' cash flow difficulties and accentuate the abandonment of workers." He added that the operations of small sub-contractors were often not well organised, and they were hard put to come up with substantiating documents, especially when they were far down the supply chain. As the line could consist of five or even more sub-contractors, he said that when a developer is late in payments, the main contractor delays paying his first sub-contractor, which then starts a domino effect.
"By the time the last few sub-contractors know there'll be a delay in payments for the works done, they would already have financed the project for several months already," Mr Lee said. "If there is no bond, there is a higher chance that the employer can stretch his dollar a bit longer and keep the worker."
Manpower ministry stands by $2,000 security bond to curb abuse
By CAROL ENG
The Business Times 31/08/1998
Bond effective in deterring abandonment of foreign workers
THE Manpower Ministry is standing by its rules for a $2,000 security bond for foreign worker levy payments as this is effective in curbing what it sees as industry malpractices that have led to abandoned foreign workers.
MOM said 726 workers on average were abandoned each month by employers who defaulted on levy payments. More than 5,000 workers were thus abandoned by this employer group from January to July, or two-thirds of the total abandoned by contractors, said MOM in response to queries from BT.
Recently, contractors and MOM have exchanged a flurry of letters in The Straits Times' Forum Page on the $2,000 levy bond.
The "industry malpractices" MOM refers to originate from a kickback system where foreign workers pay their home agents to come to Singapore. This commission is shared with the Singapore agent, who in turn splits it with the Singapore employer or contractor. Estimates of the contractors' cut amount to $1,000 to $3,000 per worker. MOM's contention is that contractors then deliberately default on foreign worker levies and subsequently abandon the workers.
In April, it introduced a bond of $2,000 per worker on employers who default on levies or who are habitually late in their payments. Employers are considered to be in default if they miss payments for two months - each month's levy is due on the 14th of the following month. Construction firms pay a monthly levy of $470 for an unskilled worker, and $100 for a skilled worker.
But writers to ST said they are late in paying levies not because of "malpractices", but because of genuine cash flow problems. In particular, some questioned the need to forfeit the bond when it should be there to cover shortfalls in payments, with the balance returned to employers. "It is even more unjust to forfeit bonds when no actual default has occurred," according to the latest writer.
The ministry's view is that most employers asked to post the bond are "likely to be non-bona fide contractors unable to provide any basis for appeal". Of the 950 employers asked to post the bond since April, only 15 per cent appealed against it, MOM noted. Of these, four-fifths were successful as they showed proof they had on-going and viable projects and were facing cash flow crunches.
Employers who are successful in their appeals will have their bonds deferred for an initial period of three months. There is no waiver.
Noting that 500-600 workers filed claims every month against employers for non-payment of salaries, MOM said: "The facts show that the perpetuators of the malpractices in the construction sector are the unscrupulous employers who bring in large groups of foreign workers only to deliberately default on their levy payments and abandon these workers. Such abuses cannot be allowed to continue unchecked."
Singapore Contractors Association Ltd executive director Simon Lee agreed that abuses existed in the system.
The managing director of a listed construction firm said it was mainly subcontractors who were giving problems, as main contractors were unlikely to let their names be dragged down.
Mr Lee said: "There tends to be 'other employers' using the guise of a sub-contractor to flout the law." It was likely that the balance of the 950 companies did not appeal because they were unaware that they could do so, he said.
"In good times, the bond may be a good deterrent. But in bad times, it may aggravate contractors' cash flow difficulties and accentuate the abandonment of workers." He added that the operations of small sub-contractors were often not well organised, and they were hard put to come up with substantiating documents, especially when they were far down the supply chain. As the line could consist of five or even more sub-contractors, he said that when a developer is late in payments, the main contractor delays paying his first sub-contractor, which then starts a domino effect.
"By the time the last few sub-contractors know there'll be a delay in payments for the works done, they would already have financed the project for several months already," Mr Lee said. "If there is no bond, there is a higher chance that the employer can stretch his dollar a bit longer and keep the worker."
Monday, August 3, 1998
"$1 for a maid" offer criticised.
The following article was published in the Straits Times on 3 Aug 1998.
"$1 for a maid" offer criticised
By Chin Soo Fang.
Straits Times, 3 August 1998
SOME maid agencies here are offering to find domestic help for as little as S$1, or even for free; but two trade associations have spoken out against them.
The "low-cost" agencies have been advertising since May, and most of them bring in Indonesian maids.
But the Association of Recruitment and Employment Agents (Area) and the Foreign Maids Employment Agencies Association (FMEAA) have spoken out against the agencies.
At a joint press conference last Thursday, Dr Chua Kim Seng, Area's president, said they had seen more complaints about maids running away or about their poor performance. He attributed this to the burden placed on the maids by agencies charging low fees.
He explained: "The cost of deployment of a maid, which is usually about S$1,200, should be paid by the employer.
"But these agencies deflect the cost to the maid to make their services cheaper."
So these maids are made to work without pay for the first few months to pay the S$1,200, which covers their medical check-up, training, insurance and other expenses incurred in their countries of origin, he said.
This, he added, is on top of the S$650 or so that the women have to pay the Singapore agencies in transportation and airport charges, and administrative fees.
He said: "Their work performance will inevitably be affected. Some even choose to run away."
Area and FMEAA took out an advertisement in The Straits Times last Friday urging employers to choose their members, whose fees start at $1,200.
Between them, Area and FMEAA have close to 100 members. There are about 1,800 agencies here, Dr Chua said.
When contacted by The Straits Times, Mr Thomas Khoo, manager of Delijoy Employment Agency, which places "$1 only" advertisements, said that what it is doing is not illegal.
He added: "In fact, we bear a greater responsibility for charging the employers so little because if our maids do run away, we cannot collect any money from the maids."
He said his company came up with the S$1 offer because of the economic crisis.
"We have so many maids waiting for jobs at our training quarters back in Jakarta," he said.
"At the same time, demand for maids had dropped."
His maids come here, he said, knowing that they will not be paid for the first four months.
"It is fine for them because their needs such as accommodation and food are taken care of by their employers."
Some of the other agencies said they could offer employers lower agency fees because the foreign maids were willing to bear the cost as there was an over-supply in their services, and because of the low value of the rupiah.
Several other agencies here have also lowered their prices, though not as drastically.
Maid-Power, for example, used to charge about S$1,000. Now, it is down to S$588.
But its director, Ms Ivy Lee, said this was not at the expense of the maids' wages.
She said: "We bargained for a lower price with our supplier in Indonesia. In exchange, we promised to market their applicants exclusively."
She added: "Every agency has its own way of doing business and its own bargaining power with its suppliers. Nobody should dictate a fixed price."
But she agreed that the maids' services could be affected if too heavy a burden was placed on them.
"If a person has to go without pay, she will have very low morale and little motivation."
"$1 for a maid" offer criticised
By Chin Soo Fang.
Straits Times, 3 August 1998
SOME maid agencies here are offering to find domestic help for as little as S$1, or even for free; but two trade associations have spoken out against them.
The "low-cost" agencies have been advertising since May, and most of them bring in Indonesian maids.
But the Association of Recruitment and Employment Agents (Area) and the Foreign Maids Employment Agencies Association (FMEAA) have spoken out against the agencies.
At a joint press conference last Thursday, Dr Chua Kim Seng, Area's president, said they had seen more complaints about maids running away or about their poor performance. He attributed this to the burden placed on the maids by agencies charging low fees.
He explained: "The cost of deployment of a maid, which is usually about S$1,200, should be paid by the employer.
"But these agencies deflect the cost to the maid to make their services cheaper."
So these maids are made to work without pay for the first few months to pay the S$1,200, which covers their medical check-up, training, insurance and other expenses incurred in their countries of origin, he said.
This, he added, is on top of the S$650 or so that the women have to pay the Singapore agencies in transportation and airport charges, and administrative fees.
He said: "Their work performance will inevitably be affected. Some even choose to run away."
Area and FMEAA took out an advertisement in The Straits Times last Friday urging employers to choose their members, whose fees start at $1,200.
Between them, Area and FMEAA have close to 100 members. There are about 1,800 agencies here, Dr Chua said.
When contacted by The Straits Times, Mr Thomas Khoo, manager of Delijoy Employment Agency, which places "$1 only" advertisements, said that what it is doing is not illegal.
He added: "In fact, we bear a greater responsibility for charging the employers so little because if our maids do run away, we cannot collect any money from the maids."
He said his company came up with the S$1 offer because of the economic crisis.
"We have so many maids waiting for jobs at our training quarters back in Jakarta," he said.
"At the same time, demand for maids had dropped."
His maids come here, he said, knowing that they will not be paid for the first four months.
"It is fine for them because their needs such as accommodation and food are taken care of by their employers."
Some of the other agencies said they could offer employers lower agency fees because the foreign maids were willing to bear the cost as there was an over-supply in their services, and because of the low value of the rupiah.
Several other agencies here have also lowered their prices, though not as drastically.
Maid-Power, for example, used to charge about S$1,000. Now, it is down to S$588.
But its director, Ms Ivy Lee, said this was not at the expense of the maids' wages.
She said: "We bargained for a lower price with our supplier in Indonesia. In exchange, we promised to market their applicants exclusively."
She added: "Every agency has its own way of doing business and its own bargaining power with its suppliers. Nobody should dictate a fixed price."
But she agreed that the maids' services could be affected if too heavy a burden was placed on them.
"If a person has to go without pay, she will have very low morale and little motivation."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)